"Peak oil represents a grave threat to our food supply, in my opinion. Few are aware of how important the petroleum industry is to the agricultural revolution in which we live."

Very good analysis, but unfortunately incomplete. Because it only considers the role that oil's increasing scarcity and price rise after PO will play as INPUT to the food production process. It does not take into account the role those factors will play as incentives to divert agricultural feedstock into production of biofuels. So the prospects for food production and population levels are even worse.

And when analyzing this issue, we must avoid finding comfort in realizing that (quoted from Robert Rapier) "the petroleum equivalent yield from planting all of the world's arable land in one of the more popular biofuel options is just under 30 million barrels per day." Because the decision about how much agricultural production will be diverted into biofuels will not be made for the whole world by a hypothetical council that considers the world as one unit and takes into account the energy and food needs of the world's population.

Rather, the decisions will be made by the countries which today are big agricultural exporters taking into account THEIR needs. And the key point here is that the countries with more biofuel production potential (e.g. Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay) have much lower liquid fuel (and energy in general) usage per capita than OECD countries. Therefore if they maximize the allocation of THEIR agricultural potential into biodiesel production (plus sugar cane to ethanol) for THEIR use, they will be able to run the critical part of THEIR current infrastructures FOR EVER, and it is just not reasonable to expect they will forego that possibility.

Therefore people in countries that today depend on imported food will have a problem.

These are my conclusions:

- With biodiesel from soybean, sunflower and rapeseed (SSR for short) being a clear net energy gainer, it is most unlikely that agriculture will ever revert to using animal and human energy.

- Once significant biodiesel production capacity has been built, fuel arbitraging will make the price of diesel fuel (however high it goes after crude oil production starts to decline) set the floor for the price of SSR oils.

- Land arbitraging based on farmers' profits per acre will in turn drive the allocation of land to biodiesel crops or to grain crops, setting the floor for grain prices.

- There is a food Export Land Model, where food exports will be falling not because rising internal consumption, but because of ever increasing feedstock and land diversion into biofuels production.

- This is independent from the issue of lower yields from lack of fertilizer.

- Poor food importing countries, and poor people in general, will be priced out of food.

- The world is NOW at peak food.

- Demographic scenarios of 9 billion people don't stand a chance.

- Opposition to the expansion of arable land by way of Amazon deforestation, in order to preserve biodiversity, amounts to increasing the number of people condemned to starvation.

- Ditto for further loss of arable land by suburban and exurban real state "development".

"- There is a food Export Land Model, where food exports will be falling not because rising internal consumption, but because of ever increasing feedstock and land diversion into biofuels production."

But that has the same flaw that the Export Land Model does: we have food to export that the oil exporters cannot live without; they have oil that we cannot live without; but people extend the model to the point of absurdity when they assume that the Middle East would rather starve to death and we would rather burn all of our food for fuel than trade them.

IMHO, the upper limit to both models is that the Middle East will always be willing to trade enough oil to buy enough food to avoid starving, and we will always be willing to trade them enough food to buy the oil needed to produce food, as long as trade is possible. If (or when) we get to the point that that trade is no longer possible, we'll no longer be able to worry about economic models anyway.

You assume that trade is the only solution to these differences in resources. You assume that governments would not willingly let some sectors of their own populations starve. Both of those assumptions are disproven by history and thus should not be relied upon in times of extreme stress.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone

No, actually I assume that there is currently trade and it is likely to continue until it's no longer viable. You do agree that there is currently trade in these commodities, don't you?

No, I don't assume that the governments won't let some of their population starve. I'm not willing to assume that they'll allow general starvation in Saudi Arabia however. The Saudi regime's grip on power is already questionable. If they let too many people starve Bin Laden will be put in charge.

I absolutely agree that these can't be expected in times of extreme stress. That's why I wrote "If (or when) we get to the point that that trade is no longer possible, we'll no longer be able to worry about economic models anyway." That would indeed be a time of extreme stress!

You assume that governments would not willingly let some sectors of their own populations starve

Yes, and I think China would almost welcome a 200-500 million drop in population size.

Mother Nature Bats Last

Then China would lose the ONE thing that has allowed them to have 10% growth rates -
ARMIES of cheap, well-behaving, better-than-world-average educated labor. Once this advantage is gone, China hardly has any other to replace it.

India? Perhaps. Pakistan? Sure. Indonesia? Why not? China?
HELL NO.

Of course, net oil exports don't have to go to zero for serious problems to develop, but in any case I thought that it was interesting that the UK and Indonesian net exports crashed in seven and eight years respectively, with vastly different economic characteristics.

And the US in the early Forties was a key supplier of oil to the Allies, but we became a net oil importer in 1945, 25 years before our oil production peaked.

Yes, I absolutely agree with this. I'm not arguing that the end result of ELM will be any less painful, just that there is something of an upper bound that isn't being accounted for. It may even have the same end result, since a situation where the Saudi's are forced to cut their consumption or give up food imports may result in such social unrest that they end up with neither. I think it's more likely that the Saudi's will make the same changes that Iran did, and start raising prices slowly before it becomes a problem. The Saudi princes may not be democratic, but they are smart.

The biggest advantage of a horse over a tractor is it's ability to self replicate. The logistics of bringing spare parts to a tractor is alot more complicated than that of producing a foal: just take your mare to your neighbour's stud and nature will take it's course.

Wether or not beasts of burden will be made of flesh or steel in a post oil future depends on the economics of it. If a farmer can't afford spare parts for his complicated machinery he may choose instead to keep a horse and devote some portion of his land to growing feed for it. The huge rubber tires a tractor needs for instance will in a world of scarce petroleum require a long supply line.

With biodiesel from soybean, sunflower and rapeseed (SSR for short) being a clear net energy gainer, it is most unlikely that agriculture will ever revert to using animal and human energy.

Disagree. Many countries still rely heavily on human labor for farming. Why is this? Do they just not realize that rapeseed can be grown for biodiesel?

Of course not. It's because labor is cheaper. A situation we may be returning to.

Leanan quoting someone wrote:
'With biodiesel from soybean, sunflower and rapeseed (SSR for short) being a clear net energy gainer, it is most unlikely that agriculture will ever revert to using animal and human energy.'

"Disagree. Many countries still rely heavily on human labor for farming. Why is this? Do they just not realize that rapeseed can be grown for biodiesel?"

"Of course not. It's because labor is cheaper. A situation we may be returning to."

Having lived in China, I would agree with this that China uses human labor because they need every acre for food production. Growing fuel is a luxury. I have seen some of the smallest wheat farms I have ever seen while traveling China. I have also drank the stiffest alcoholic drink made from wheat. What a kick that Naxi jiu had!

And leanan, thank you for doing the news every day. I read what you post all the time.

glenn
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Oilcrisis.htm

need every acre for food production

Which is why animal labor is a long term poor plan, because one can put power sources like PV or windmills so they do not effect the crop growing locations.

According to my calculations, it would require about 5-10% of total cultivated acreage to be devoted to sunflowers or rapeseed to produce enough oil to fuel farm equipment.

Compare this to the amount of acreage needed to feed each farm worker or beast of burden. Without mechanization, most farming becomes subsistence farming. Rarely are societies built on subsistence farming able to produce enough surplus to allow the non-farm population to exceed the farm population. This suggests that perhaps 50% or more of arable acreage must be devoted to feeding farm workers or beasts of burden on non-mechanized farms.

A VERY good observation, that we tend to forget.
mechanisation freed up a lot of foodstuff resources!!

Put a sail on your plow instead of a horse..

A couple of things that don't immeadiately come to mind is that horse manure is great stuff. Apparently virtually 100% of the nitrogen phosphorous and potassium are returned. In housing of older times the livestock lived below the living quarters and so provided heat for the house in winter.
What the bio-fuel should do is to run the motor to drive the thrashing machine. It can also be used to drive the motor that runs the baler (balers however are high maintenance) that the horses will pull.

I think we will need all of the tools that we can get. Horses can eat off of land that can't be cultivated. So as Wendell Berry pointed out they are well suited to a small mixed farm on a different class of land. We need to get rid of the one size fits all paradigm.

A British organic farmer in the 40's named Freind Sykes (Wrote: Humus and the Farmer) noted that aside from an increased stocking rate conferred by having a diversity of livestock on the farm (You can keep more animals of a diverse nature on the farm then just one kind). That the livestock had a pulsing effect on the land (he had his own pasture model that let animals on to pasture in a various order). This pulsing created healthy soil. Mr Sykes boasted that he could bring cows that were infected with foot and mouth disease onto his farm and not only would his cows not contract the disease but the infected would get better.
Ecotones or 'edges' are vectors where the more intersections of woods, water, and field come together offer greater wild-life habitat and diversity.
Song birds increase the frequency of the environment and crops respond favorably (like fertilizer) to say nothing of helping to keep insect predation under control.

In a Small Farmers Journal years ago there was an article about a Korean rice harvesting machine that looked a bit like the brush off of street sweeper that a man had altered to create a horsedrawn grain harvester. The idea seemed very intelligent and when thinking about our current knowledge base I would suspect that new types of horse drawn equipment could greatly improve the effectiveness of horses.
Lightening the draft, increases mileage. Since the moldboard plow when over-used can inflict such damage no-till horse drawn machinery could prove to be quite advantageous. Other thoughts along this line are that realizing that monoculture is a large part of the problem so explore polycultural practices. And that if you can increase soil quality you get big yield increases. So initially if we are forced into a crisis return to subsistence farm models then yields would be substantially below where they would be in 10 years with proper soil management and weather blessings. Of course if we don't hit a wall then expect to have lost your time and capital investment since you can only take a beating in this marketplace.

A couple of things that don't immeadiately come to mind is that horse manure is great stuff. Apparently virtually 100% of the nitrogen phosphorous and potassium are returned.

Citation please showing that "virtually 100%" of the N K and P taken in by the horse mouth is output in the fecal matter.

Sorry Eric i don't remember where I came across that tidbit.
I hope you are not insinuating that I'm shovelling it?
Ask gardeners of old how much they liked horse manure for some references on its merits as fertilizer. On a straight npk analysis sheep manure scores better.
One thing that could be elaborated on is the fact that seeing the nutrient profile through just n.p.k. analysis leaves us sorely short sighted. Albrecht pointed out that Calcium is king. How often do the public hear of the role of calcium.

Beach Boy wrote:
"It does not take into account the role those factors will play as incentives to divert agricultural feedstock into production of biofuels. So the prospects for food production and population levels are even worse."

I would agree with this fair criticism. We are already taking food out of the mouths of poor Mexicans so that we can have ethanol.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Oilcrisis.htm

The essence of biomass energy:

The desires of more affluent people for liquid fuels directly competes with the desire of poorer people for food.

Oh, and both those desires compete with the desire of wild animals for food.

We have too many people on the planet.